petitioner's jeepney which was then being utilized by a female real estate

agent named Felicisima de Guzman. Respondent had seduced a senior

police officer in San Isidro and her charge of sexual abuse against said police
officer was later withdrawn in exchange for the quashing of drug charges
FIRST DIVISION against respondent's brother-in-law who was then detained at the municipal
jail. It was at that time respondent introduced herself to petitioner whom she
[G.R. No. 180284. September 11, 2013.] pleaded for charity as she was pregnant with another child. Petitioner denied
paternity of the child Christian Paulo; he was motivated by no other reason
except genuine altruism when he agreed to shoulder the expenses for the
NARCISO SALAS, petitioner, vs. ANNABELLE MATUSALEM,
delivery of said child, unaware of respondent's chicanery and deceit designed
respondent.
to "scandalize" him in exchange for financial favor.
At the trial, respondent and her witness Grace Murillo testified.
DECISION Petitioner was declared to have waived his right to present evidence and the
case was considered submitted for decision based on respondent's evidence.
Respondent testified that she first met petitioner at the house of his
VILLARAMA, JR., J :
"kumadre" Felicisima de Guzman at Bgy. Malapit, San Isidro, Nueva Ecija.
p

During their subsequent meeting, petitioner told her he is already a widower

Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari which seeks to
and he has no more companion in life because his children are all grown-up.
reverse and set aside the Decision 1 dated July 18, 2006 and Resolution 2
She also learned that petitioner owns a rice mill, a construction business and
dated October 19, 2007 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No.
a housing subdivision (petitioner offered her a job at their family-owned Ma.
64379.
Cristina Village). Petitioner at the time already knows that she is a single
The factual antecedents: mother as she had a child by her former boyfriend in Italy. He then brought her
to a motel, promising that he will take care of her and marry her. She believed
On May 26, 1995, Annabelle Matusalem (respondent) filed a complaint
him and yielded to his advances, with the thought that she and her child will
3for Support/Damages against Narciso Salas (petitioner) in the Regional Trial
have a better life. Thereafter, they saw each other weekly and petitioner gave
Court (RTC) of Cabanatuan City (Civil Case No. 2124-AF).
her money for her child. When she became pregnant with petitioner's child, it
Respondent claimed that petitioner is the father of her son Christian was only then she learned that he is in fact not a widower. She wanted to
Paulo Salas who was born on December 28, 1994. Petitioner, already 56 abort the baby but petitioner opposed it because he wanted to have another
years old at the time, enticed her as she was then only 24 years old, making child. 5
her believe that he is a widower. Petitioner rented an apartment where
On the fourth month of her pregnancy, petitioner rented an apartment
respondent stayed and shouldered all expenses in the delivery of their child,
where she stayed with a housemaid; he also provided for all their expenses.
including the cost of caesarian operation and hospital confinement. However,
She gave birth to their child on December 28, 1994 at the Good Samaritan
when respondent refused the offer of petitioner's family to take the child from
Hospital in Cabanatuan City. Before delivery, petitioner even walked her at the
her, petitioner abandoned respondent and her child and left them to the mercy
hospital room and massaged her stomach, saying he had not done this to his
of relatives and friends. Respondent further alleged that she attempted
wife. She filled out the form for the child's birth certificate and wrote all the
suicide due to depression but still petitioner refused to support her and their
information supplied by petitioner himself. It was also petitioner who paid the
child.EaDATc

hospital bills and drove her baby home. He was excited and happy to have a
Respondent thus prayed for support pendente lite and monthly support son at his advanced age who is his "look-alike," and this was witnessed by
in the amount of P20,000.00, as well as actual, moral and exemplary other boarders, visitors and Grace Murillo, the owner of the apartment unit
damages, and attorney's fees. petitioner rented. However, on the 18th day after the baby's birth, petitioner
went to Baguio City for a medical check-up. He confessed to her daughter
Petitioner filed his answer 4 with special and affirmative defenses and and eventually his wife was also informed about his having sired an
counterclaims. He described respondent as a woman of loose morals, having illegitimate child. His family then decided to adopt the baby and just give
borne her first child also out of wedlock when she went to work in Italy. respondent money so she can go abroad. When she refused this offer,
Jobless upon her return to the country, respondent spent time riding on petitioner stopped seeing her and sending money to her. She and her baby

survived through the help of relatives and friends. Depressed, she tried to It had been established by plaintiff's evidence, however, that
commit suicide by drug overdose and was brought to the hospital by Murillo during her pregnancy, Annabelle was provided by Narciso Salas with
who paid the bill. Murillo sought the help of the Cabanatuan City Police an apartment at a rental of P1,500.00 which he paid for (TSN,
Station which set their meeting with petitioner. However, it was only October 6, 1995, p. 18). Narciso provided her with a household help
petitioner's wife who showed up and she was very mad, uttering unsavory with a salary of P1,500.00 a month (TSN, October 6, 1995, ibid) He
also provided her a monthly food allowance of P1,500.00 (Ibid. p.
words against respondent. 6
18). Narciso was with Annabelle at the hospital while the latter was in
Murillo corroborated respondent's testimony as to the payment by labor, "walking" her around and massaging her belly (Ibid. p. 11).
petitioner of apartment rental, his weekly visits to respondent and financial Narciso brought home Christian Paulo to the rented apartment after
support to her, his presence during and after delivery of respondent's baby, Annabelle's discharge from the hospital. People living in the same
respondent's attempted suicide through sleeping pills overdose and apartment units were witnesses to Narciso's delight to father a son at
hospitalization for which she paid the bill, her complaint before the police his age which was his "look alike". It was only after the 18th day
authorities and meeting with petitioner's wife at the headquarters. 7 when Annabelle refused to give him Christian Paulo that Narciso
withdrew his support to him and his mother.
On April 5, 1999, the trial court rendered its decision 8 in favor of
Said testimony of Annabelle aside from having been
respondent, the dispositive portion of which reads:
corroborated by Grace Murillo, the owner of the apartment which
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby Narciso rented, was never rebutted on record. Narciso did not
rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant as follows: present any evidence, verbal or documentary, to repudiate plaintiff's
evidence.
1. Ordering the defendant to give as monthly support of
TWO THOUSAND (P2,000.00) PESOS for the child In the cases of Lim vs. CA (270 SCRA 1) and Rodriguez vs.
Christian Paulo through the mother; CA (245 SCRA 150), the Supreme Court made it clear that Article
172 of the Family Code is an adaptation of Article 283 of the Civil
2. Directing the defendant to pay the plaintiff the sum of
Code. Said legal provision provides that the father is obliged to
P20,000.00 by way of litigation expenses; and
recognize the child as his natural child . . . " 3) when the child has in
3. To pay the costs of suit. his favor any evidence or proof that the defendant is his father".

SO ORDERED. 9 In fact, in Ilano vs. CA (230 SCRA 242, 258-259), it was held
that —
Petitioner appealed to the CA arguing that: (1) the trial court decided
the case without affording him the right to introduce evidence on his defense; "The last paragraph of Article 283 contains a blanket
and (2) the trial court erred in finding that petitioner is the putative father of provision that practically covers all the other cases in the
Christian Paulo and ordering him to give monthly support. preceding paragraphs. 'Any other evidence or proof' that the
defendant is the father is broad enough to render unnecessary
By Decision dated July 18, 2006, the CA dismissed petitioner's appeal. the other paragraphs of this article. When the evidence
The appellate court found no reason to disturb the trial court's exercise of submitted in the action for compulsory recognition is not
discretion in denying petitioner's motion for postponement on April 17, 1998, sufficient to meet [the] requirements of the first three
the scheduled hearing for the initial presentation of defendant's evidence, and paragraphs, it may still be enough under the last paragraph.
the motion for reconsideration of the said order denying the motion for This paragraph permits hearsay and reputation evidence, as
postponement and submitting the case for decision. TAaEIc
provided in the Rules of Court, with respect to illegitimate
filiation."
On the paternity issue, the CA affirmed the trial court's ruling that
As a necessary consequence of the finding that Christian
respondent satisfactorily established the illegitimate filiation of her son
Paulo is the son of defendant Narciso Salas, he is entitled to support
Christian Paulo, and consequently no error was committed by the trial court in
from the latter (Ilano vs. CA, supra).
granting respondent's prayer for support. The appellate court thus held:
It "shall be demandable from the time the person who has the
Christian Paulo, in instant case, does not enjoy the benefit of a
right to recover the same needs it for maintenance . . ." (Art. 203,
record of birth in the civil registry which bears acknowledgment
signed by Narciso Salas. He cannot claim open and continuous Family Code of the Philippines). 10
possession of the status of an illegitimate child. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied by the CA.
 Hence, this petition submitting the following arguments: Records disclosed that after the termination of the testimony of
respondent's last witness on November 29, 1996, the trial court as prayed for
1. THE VENUE OF THE CASE WAS IMPROPERLY LAID
BEFORE THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF CABANATUAN CITY by the parties, set the continuation of hearing for the reception of evidence for
CONSIDERING THAT BOTH PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT the defendant (petitioner) on January 27, February 3, and February 10, 1997.
ARE ACTUAL RESIDENTS OF BRGY. MALAPIT, SAN ISIDRO, In the Order dated December 17, 1996, petitioner was advised to be ready
NUEVA ECIJA. with his evidence at those hearing dates earlier scheduled. At the hearing on
January 27, 1997, petitioner's former counsel, Atty. Rolando S. Bala,
2. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN requested for the cancellation of the February 3 and 10, 1997 hearings in
PRONOUNCING THAT PETITIONER WAS AFFORDED THE FULL
order to give him time to prepare for his defense, which request was granted
MEASURE OF HIS RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW AND IN
by the trial court which thus reset the hearing dates to March 3, 14 and 17,
UPHOLDING THAT THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT GRAVELY
1997. On March 3, 1997, upon oral manifestation by Atty. Bala and without
ABUSE ITS DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF
objection from respondent's counsel, Atty. Feliciano Wycoco, the trial court
JURISDICTION WHEN IT DECIDED THE INSTANT CASE
WITHOUT AFFORDING PETITIONER THE RIGHT TO INTRODUCE again reset the hearing to March 14 and 17, 1997. With the non-appearance
EVIDENCE IN HIS DEFENSE. of both petitioner and Atty. Bala on March 14, 1997, the trial court upon oral
manifestation by Atty. Wycoco declared their absence as a waiver of their right
3. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN to present evidence and accordingly deemed the case submitted for decision.
HOLDING THAT THE FILIATION OF CHRISTIAN PAULO WAS 16 ICHAaT

DULY ESTABLISHED PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 175 IN RELATION

TO ARTICLE 172 OF THE FAMILY CODE AND EXISTING On July 4, 1997, Atty. Bala withdrew as counsel for petitioner and Atty.
JURISPRUDENCE AND THEREFORE ENTITLED TO SUPPORT Rafael E. Villarosa filed his appearance as his new counsel on July 21, 1997.
FROM THE PETITIONER. 11 On the same date he filed entry of appearance, Atty. Villarosa filed a motion
for reconsideration of the March 14, 1997 Order pleading for liberality and
We grant the petition.
magnanimity of the trial court, without offering any explanation for Atty. Bala's
It is a legal truism that the rules on the venue of personal actions are failure to appear for the initial presentation of their evidence. The trial court
fixed for the convenience of the plaintiffs and their witnesses. Equally settled, thereupon reconsidered its March 14, 1997 Order, finding it better to give
however, is the principle that choosing the venue of an action is not left to a petitioner a chance to present his evidence. On August 26, 1997, Atty.
plaintiff's caprice; the matter is regulated by the Rules of Court. 12 Villarosa received a notice of hearing for the presentation of their evidence
scheduled on September 22, 1997. On August 29, 1997, the trial court
In personal actions such as the instant case, the Rules give the plaintiff
received his motion requesting that the said hearing be re-set to October 10,
the option of choosing where to file his complaint. He can file it in the place (1)
1997 for the reason that he had requested the postponement of a hearing in
where he himself or any of them resides, or (2) where the defendant or any of
another case which was incidentally scheduled on September 22, 23 and 24,
the defendants resides or may be found. 13 The plaintiff or the defendant must
1997. As prayed for, the trial court reset the hearing to October 10, 1997. On
be residents of the place where the action has been instituted at the time the
said date, however, the hearing was again moved to December 15, 1997. On
action is commenced. 14 February 16, 1998, the trial court itself reset the hearing to April 17, 1998
However, petitioner raised the issue of improper venue for the first time since it was unclear whether Atty. Wycoco received a copy of the motion. 17
in the Answer itself and no prior motion to dismiss based on such ground was
On April 17, 1998, petitioner and his counsel failed to appear but the
filed. Under the Rules of Court before the 1997 amendments, an objection to
trial court received on April 16, 1998 an urgent motion to cancel hearing filed
an improper venue must be made before a responsive pleading is filed.
by Atty. Villarosa. The reason given by the latter was the scheduled hearing
Otherwise, it will be deemed waived. 15 Not having been timely raised, on the issuance of writ of preliminary injunction in another case under the
petitioner's objection on venue is therefore deemed waived. April 8, 1998 Order issued by the RTC of Gapan, Nueva Ecija, Branch 36 in
As to the denial of the motion for postponement filed by his counsel for Civil Case No. 1946. But as clearly stated in the said order, it was the plaintiffs
the resetting of the initial presentation of defense evidence on April 17, 1998, therein who requested the postponement of the hearing and it behoved Atty.
we find that it was not the first time petitioner's motion for postponement was Villarosa to inform the RTC of Gapan that he had a previous commitment
denied by the trial court. considering that the April 17, 1998 hearing was scheduled as early as
February 16, 1998. Acting on the motion for postponement, the trial court
denied for the second time petitioner's motion for postponement. Even at the

hearing of their motion for reconsideration of the April 17, 1998 Order on The filiation of legitimate children is established by any of the
September 21, 1998, Atty. Villarosa failed to appear and instead filed another following:
motion for postponement. The trial court thus ordered that the case be (1) The record of birth appearing in the civil register or a
submitted for decision stressing that the case had long been pending and that final judgment; or
petitioner and his counsel have been given opportunities to present their
evidence. It likewise denied a second motion for reconsideration filed by Atty. (2) An admission of legitimate filiation in a public
document or a private handwritten instrument and signed by the
Villarosa, who arrived late during the hearing thereof on December 4, 1998. 18
parent concerned.
A motion for continuance or postponement is not a matter of right, but a
In the absence of the foregoing evidence, the legitimate
request addressed to the sound discretion of the court. Parties asking for
filiation shall be proved by:
postponement have absolutely no right to assume that their motions would be
granted. Thus, they must be prepared on the day of the hearing. 19 Indeed, an (1) The open and continuous possession of the status of a
order declaring a party to have waived the right to present evidence for legitimate child; or
performing dilatory actions upholds the trial court's duty to ensure that trial (2) Any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and
proceeds despite the deliberate delay and refusal to proceed on the part of special laws. (Underscoring supplied.)
one party. 20
Respondent presented the Certificate of Live Birth 24 (Exhibit "A-1") of
Atty. Villarosa's plea for liberality was correctly rejected by the trial court Christian Paulo Salas in which the name of petitioner appears as his father
in view of his own negligence in failing to ensure there will be no conflict in his but which is not signed by him. Admittedly, it was only respondent who filled
trial schedules. As we held in Tiomico v. Court of Appeals: 21 up the entries and signed the said document though she claims it was
petitioner who supplied the information she wrote therein.
Motions for postponement are generally frowned upon by
Courts if there is evidence of bad faith, malice or inexcusable We have held that a certificate of live birth purportedly identifying the
negligence on the part of the movant. The inadvertence of the putative father is not competent evidence of paternity when there is no
defense counsel in failing to take note of the trial dates and in showing that the putative father had a hand in the preparation of the
belatedly informing the trial court of any conflict in his schedules of certificate. 25 Thus, if the father did not sign in the birth certificate, the placing
trial or court appearances, constitutes inexcusable negligence. It
of his name by the mother, doctor, registrar, or other person is incompetent
should be borne in mind that a client is bound by his counsel's
evidence of paternity. 26 Neither can such birth certificate be taken as a
conduct, negligence and mistakes in handling the case. 22
recognition in a public instrument 27 and it has no probative value to establish
With our finding that there was no abuse of discretion in the trial court's filiation to the alleged father. 28
denial of the motion for postponement filed by petitioner's counsel, petitioner's
contention that he was deprived of his day in court must likewise fail. The As to the Baptismal Certificate 29 (Exhibit "B") of Christian Paulo Salas
essence of due process is that a party is given a reasonable opportunity to be also indicating petitioner as the father, we have ruled that while baptismal
heard and submit any evidence one may have in support of one's defense. certificates may be considered public documents, they can only serve as
Where a party was afforded an opportunity to participate in the proceedings evidence of the administration of the sacraments on the dates so specified.
but failed to do so, he cannot complain of deprivation of due process. If the They are not necessarily competent evidence of the veracity of entries therein
opportunity is not availed of, it is deemed waived or forfeited without violating with respect to the child's paternity. 30
the constitutional guarantee. 23 The rest of respondent's documentary evidence consists of handwritten
We now proceed to the main issue of whether the trial and appellate notes and letters, hospital bill and photographs taken of petitioner and
courts erred in ruling that respondent's evidence sufficiently proved that her respondent inside their rented apartment unit.
son Christian Paulo is the illegitimate child of petitioner. Pictures taken of the mother and her child together with the alleged
Under Article 175 of the Family Code of the Philippines, illegitimate father are inconclusive evidence to prove paternity. 31 Exhibits "E" and "F" 32
filiation may be established in the same way and on the same evidence as showing petitioner and respondent inside the rented apartment unit thus have
legitimate children. scant evidentiary value. The Statement of Account 33 (Exhibit "C") from the
Good Samaritan General Hospital where respondent herself was indicated as
Article 172 of the Family Code of the Philippines states:
the payee is likewise incompetent to prove that petitioner is the father of her documentary and testimonial" presented in Ilano. In that case, we sustained
child notwithstanding petitioner's admission in his answer that he shouldered the appellate court's ruling anchored on the following factual findings by the
the expenses in the delivery of respondent's child as an act of charity. appellate court which was quoted at length in the ponencia:
As to the handwritten notes 34 (Exhibits "D" to "D-13") of petitioner and It was Artemio who made arrangement for the delivery of
respondent showing their exchange of affectionate words and romantic trysts, Merceditas (sic) at the Manila Sanitarium and Hospital. Prior to the
these, too, are not sufficient to establish Christian Paulo's filiation to petitioner delivery, Leoncia underwent prenatal examination accompanied by
as they were not signed by petitioner and contained no statement of Artemio (TSN, p. 33, 5/17/74). After delivery, they went home to their
admission by petitioner that he is the father of said child. Thus, even if these residence at EDSA in a car owned and driven by Artemio himself (id.
notes were authentic, they do not qualify under Article 172 (2) vis-Ã -vis p. 36).
Article 175 of the Family Code which admits as competent evidence of Merceditas (sic) bore the surname of "Ilano" since birth without
illegitimate filiation an admission of filiation in a private handwritten instrument any objection on the part of Artemio, the fact that since Merceditas
signed by the parent concerned. 35 (sic) had her discernment she had always known and called Artemio
as her "Daddy" (TSN, pp. 28-29, 10/18/74); the fact that each time
Petitioner's reliance on our ruling in Lim v. Court of Appeals 36 is Artemio was at home, he would play with Merceditas (sic), take her
misplaced. In the said case, the handwritten letters of petitioner contained a for a ride or restaurants to eat, and sometimes sleeping with
clear admission that he is the father of private respondent's daughter and Merceditas (sic) (id. p. 34) and does all what a father should do for
were signed by him. The Court therein considered the totality of evidence his child — bringing home goodies, candies, toys and whatever he
which established beyond reasonable doubt that petitioner was indeed the can bring her which a child enjoys which Artemio gives to Merceditas
father of private respondent's daughter. On the other hand, in Ilano v. Court of (sic) (TSN, pp. 38-39, 5/17/74) are positive evidence that Merceditas
Appeals, 37 the Court sustained the appellate court's finding that private (sic) is the child of Artemio and recognized by Artemio as such.
respondent's evidence to establish her filiation with and paternity of petitioner Special attention is called to Exh. "E-7" where Artemio was telling
was overwhelming, particularly the latter's public acknowledgment of his Leoncia the need for a "frog test" to know the status of Leoncia.
amorous relationship with private respondent's mother, and private Plaintiff pointed out that the support by Artemio for Leoncia
respondent as his own child through acts and words, her testimonial evidence and Merceditas (sic) was sometimes in the form of cash personally
to that effect was fully supported by documentary evidence. The Court thus delivered to her by Artemio, thru Melencio, thru Elynia (Exhs. "E-2"
ruled that respondent had adduced sufficient proof of continuous possession and "E-3", and "D-6"), or thru Merceditas (sic) herself (TSN, p. 40,
of status of a spurious child. aEIADT 5/17/74) and sometimes in the form of a check as the Manila Banking
Corporation Check No. 81532 (Exh. "G") and the signature appearing
Here, while the CA held that Christian Paulo Salas could not claim open therein which was identified by Leoncia as that of Artemio because
and continuous possession of status of an illegitimate child, it nevertheless Artemio often gives her checks and Artemio would write the check at
considered the testimonial evidence sufficient proof to establish his filiation to home and saw Artemio sign the check (TSN, p. 49, 7/18/73). Both
petitioner. Artemio and Nilda admitted that the check and signature were those
of Artemio (TSN, p. 53, 10/17/77; TSN, p. 19, 10/9/78).
An illegitimate child is now also allowed to establish his claimed filiation
by "any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws," like his During the time that Artemio and Leoncia were living as
baptismal certificate, a judicial admission, a family Bible in which his name husband and wife, Artemio has shown concern as the father of
has been entered, common reputation respecting his pedigree, admission by Merceditas (sic). When Merceditas (sic) was in Grade 1 at the St.
silence, the testimonies of witnesses, and other kinds of proof admissible Joseph Parochial School, Artemio signed the Report Card of
under Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. 38 Reviewing the records, we find the Merceditas (sic) (Exh. "H") for the fourth and fifth grading period(s)
totality of respondent's evidence insufficient to establish that petitioner is the (Exhs. "H-1" and "H-2") as the parent of Merceditas (sic). Those
father of Christian Paulo. signatures of Artemio [were] both identified by Leoncia and
Merceditas (sic) because Artemio signed Exhs. "H-1" and "H-2" at
The testimonies of respondent and Murillo as to the circumstances of their residence in the presence of Leoncia, Merceditas (sic) and of
the birth of Christian Paulo, petitioner's financial support while respondent Elynia (TSN, p. 57, 7/18/73; TSN, p. 28, 10/1/73). . . . .
lived in Murillo's apartment and his regular visits to her at the said apartment,
xxx xxx xxx
though replete with details, do not approximate the "overwhelming evidence,

When Artemio run as a candidate in the Provincial Board of If no legal representative is named by the counsel for the
Cavite[,] Artemio gave Leoncia his picture with the following deceased party, or if the one so named shall fail to appear within the
dedication: "To Nene, with best regards, Temiong". (Exh. "I"). (pp. 19- specified period, the court may order the opposing party, within a
20, Appellant's Brief) specified time to procure the appointment of an executor or
administrator for the estate of the deceased and the latter shall
The mere denial by defendant of his signature is not sufficient
immediately appear for and on behalf of the deceased. The court
to offset the totality of the evidence indubitably showing that the
charges in procuring such appointment, if defrayed by the opposing
signature thereon belongs to him. The entry in the Certificate of Live
party, may be recovered as costs.
Birth that Leoncia and Artemio was falsely stated therein as married
does not mean that Leoncia is not appellee's daughter. This WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is GRANTED. The
particular entry was caused to be made by Artemio himself in order to Decision dated July 18, 2006 and Resolution dated October 19, 2007 of the
avoid embarrassment. 39 Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 64379 are hereby REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. Civil Case No. 2124-AF of the Regional Trial Court of Cabanatuan
In sum, we hold that the testimonies of respondent and Murillo, by
City, Branch 26 is DISMISSED.
themselves are not competent proof of paternity and the totality of
respondent's evidence failed to establish Christian Paulo's filiation to No pronouncement as to costs.
petitioner.
SO ORDERED. cHAaCE

Time and again, this Court has ruled that a high standard of proof is
required to establish paternity and filiation. An order for recognition and Sereno, C.J., Leonardo-de Castro, Bersamin and Reyes, JJ., concur.
support may create an unwholesome situation or may be an irritant to the
family or the lives of the parties so that it must be issued only if paternity or
Footnotes
filiation is established by clear and convincing evidence. 40
1. Rollo, pp. 75-84. Penned by Associate Justice Arcangelita M. Romilla-
Finally, we note the Manifestation and Motion 41 filed by petitioner's
Lontok with Associate Justices Roberto A. Barrios and Mario L. Guariña III
counsel informing this Court that petitioner had died on May 6, 2010.
concurring.
The action for support having been filed in the trial court when petitioner 2. Id. at 93. Penned by Associate Justice Arcangelita M. Romilla-Lontok
was still alive, it is not barred under Article 175 (2) 42 of the Family Code. We with Associate Justices Mario L. Guariña III and Lucenito N. Tagle.
have also held that the death of the putative father is not a bar to the action
3. Records, pp. 1-6.
commenced during his lifetime by one claiming to be his illegitimate child. 43
The rule on substitution of parties provided in Section 16, Rule 3 of the 1997 4. Id. at 24-26.
Rules of Civil Procedure, thus applies.
5. TSN, October 6, 1995, p. 21; TSN, November 17, 1995, pp. 4-7, 13;
SEC. 16. Death of party; duty of counsel. — Whenever a TSN, March 22, 1996, pp. 14-25; TSN, June 3, 1996, pp. 19-29, 33-37.
party to a pending action dies, and the claim is not thereby
6. Id. at 8-21; id. at 10-12; id. at 7-11; id. at 9-10, 14-18, 43-46; TSN,
extinguished, it shall be the duty of his counsel to inform the court
February 19, 1996, pp. 6, 10-12.
within thirty (30) days after such death of the fact thereof, and to give
the name and address of his legal representative or representatives. 7. TSN, July 8, 1996, pp. 5-11; TSN, November 29, 1996, pp. 4-9, 15-26.
Failure of counsel to comply with his duty shall be a ground for
8. Rollo, pp. 65-73. Penned by Acting Presiding Judge Johnson L. Ballutay.
disciplinary action.
9. Id. at 72-73.
The heirs of the deceased may be allowed to be substituted
for the deceased, without requiring the appointment of an executor or 10. Id. at 82-83.
administrator and the court may appoint a guardian ad litem for the
11. Id. at 180-181.
minor heirs.
12. Ang v. Ang, G.R. No. 186993, August 22, 2012, 678 SCRA 699, 705,
The court shall forthwith order said legal representative or
citing Hyatt Elevators and Escalators Corp. v. Goldstar Elevators, Phils.,
representatives to appear and be substituted within a period of thirty
Inc., 510 Phil. 467, 476 (2005).
(30) days from notice.
13. 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, Rule 4, Section 2.